National Industrial Court Orders Osun Govt to Review Promotion Decision

The National Industrial Court sitting in Akure has ordered Osun State Government to review the promotion of Mr Olabisi Abidemi to the post of Director on Grade Level 17.

The court also found that the decision not to consider him for promotion was unfair and inconsistent with the principles guiding public service administration.

Justice Kiyersohot Damulak, in his judgment, ordered the Governor of Osun State, the Attorney General, the Head of Service and the State Civil Service Commission to review Abidemi’s candidature in accordance with the Osun State Public Service Rules.

The court ordered that any promotion resulting from the reconsideration should take effect from the date it should have been effected and awarded N500,000 as the cost of the action in favour of the claimant.

According to court records, “Abidemi joined the Osun State Civil Service in May 2004 and was promoted to the position of Deputy Director on Grade Level 16 in July 2021.”

The claimant, who told the court he was on an approved leave of absence, but whose name appeared in the list of officers slated for promotion interview to Grade Level 17 in August 2025, participated in the exercise.

Abidemi also said that he waited for the outcome after the interview but heard nothing about his promotion status and so he wrote complaint and appeal letters to the Head of Service.

But in their defence, the Governor of Osun State and other defendants claimed that “Abidemi was not denied promotion on account of his leave of absence but was denied promotion because he did not satisfy requirements under the Osun State Public Service Rules, particularly on continuous supervision by a reporting officer and annual performance evaluation reports for four years.”

It was also their argument that “Abidemi had served the Osun State Civil Service for a period of only about eight months in the last eight years and that officers on leave of absence are not under the supervision of reporting officers during such periods.”

I. A. Mikaheel, counsel for the claimant, argued that the Public Service Rules and the approval for his client’s leave of absence did not stipulate that such leave could be a basis for denying promotion.

Justice Damulak said in delivering judgment that “while promotion is not an automatic right, the discretion exercised by public authorities in statutory employment matters must be fair, transparent, consistent and in accordance with established rules.”

The court noted that “there was no written policy offered by the defendants that required a reporting officer to supervise an officer for four years before a promotion could be considered.”

The court also noted that no report of the promotion committee, recommendation or documentary rationale for the claimant’s exclusion was placed before it.

“I, therefore, find that the defendants were inconsistent and unjust in their refusal to consider the claimant for promotion after listing him as eligible for promotion,” Justice Damulak said.

The court also held that Abidemi had been promoted to Grade Level 16 while on leave of absence and was subsequently short-listed for the interview of 2025 creating a legitimate expectation that the leave would not automatically disqualify him from being considered for promotion.